On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
Antonio,
So are you suggesting that we replace IPv4 NAT with IPv6 routing proxy?
I'm suggesting not relying on NAT as a crutch in your specific example.
It seems too easy to just mirror IPv4 practices onto IPv6 and not look at
how IPv6 capabilities enable other potential solutions. In my mind it's
almost an impediment toward broader acceptance of IPv6. It implies
treating IPv6 as only just 'more bits'. We don't really do a good job of
'selling' IPv6, and I don't mean to the end-user who doesn't know or
should even care, but to network admins/consultants/operators, many of
whom have NAT firmly implanted in their default toolkit.
The unfortunate reality though is that hardware manufacturers have
non-trivial challenges in producing plug-n-play CPEs that can still work
in the NAT-to-everything world of IPv4 and provide the same functionality
in a non-NATed IPv6 world. It's hard to migrate towards a cleaner network
when the necessary tools are still hard to come by. Can anyone name more
than a handful of off-the-shelf CPEs that are capable of doing native IPv6
routing and can be daisy-chained easily for say less than $150? How about
less than $250? $500? :(
Sorry for the digression.
--
Antonio Querubin
whois: AQ7-ARIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
